Had dodgy advice from a nutritional therapist? We have!

Have you ever visited a nutritional therapist? In this month’s Which? magazine we investigated the profession and found some worrying practices, such as therapists advising against going to your GP.

One therapist advised our researcher, who was posing as a cancer sufferer, against having conventional treatment (a lumpectomy and radiotherapy), saying that she should try for three to six months to rid herself of the cancer through diet (by cutting out sugar).

Nutritional therapy can be big business; therapists charge up to £80 for a consultation and often prescribe expensive supplements on top. So we wanted to investigate whether it was worth the money.

How our investigation worked

We asked five undercover researchers to each visit three therapists. Each researcher was provided with a scenario.

One researcher (in her early 30s) had been trying to conceive unsuccessfully for over a year. Two (in their 50s) had been suffering from severe tiredness for the past three months. And two women (in their 40s) had recently been diagnosed with DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma in Situ), the most common type of non-invasive breast cancer.

A panel of experts (a dietitian, a GP and a Professor of Pharmacology) then assessed recordings of the visits and any other information the therapists provided to the researchers, including prescriptions for supplements.

Are nutritional therapists worth the money?

Our expert panel concluded that visiting a nutritional therapist wasn’t worth the money – and in some cases could have actually endangered the health of the researcher. Six of the fifteen consultations were rated as ‘dangerous fails’.

This could have been down to a number of reasons:

The advice given by the therapist could have potentially harmed the researcher.

Therapists were diagnosing conditions without relevant testing (even though their Code of Practice says they shouldn’t diagnose).

Researchers were advised not to visit their GPs about the problem, recommending unproven testing such as hair mineral analysis, and the case above, advising against cancer treatment.

Of the remaining visits, eight were rated as ‘fails’ and only one was graded as a ‘borderline pass’. Our experts were disappointed by the advice given by therapists and concerned at their poor knowledge of the body and how it works.

The experts were also worried by some therapists using non-evidence-based testing to diagnose symptoms. These tests included iridology (studying the patterns, colour and other characteristics of the iris), hair mineral analysis and a researcher being given several liquids to hold in his mouth before being told he had a chromium deficiency.

Are the recommendations right?

Twelve of the therapists prescribed supplements to the researchers, costing up to £70 a month. Researchers were told not to buy them from Boots or other high street chemists as they weren’t ‘pure enough’ and you were effectively ‘flushing your money down the loo’. Instead, they were asked to buy them from the retailers recommended by the therapist.

Of course, there is benefit in following healthy dietary advice, but most of what was provided by the nutritional therapists is freely available on websites such as the NHS site.

Plus, most of the therapists in our investigation recommended quite restrictive diets that excluded several foods (predominantly dairy and wheat) and taking expensive supplements.

If you do have a medical condition that you are concerned about, your first port of call should be your GP. If necessary they can then refer you to a dietitian. We have contacted the British Association of Applied Nutrition and Nutritional Therapy (BANT) with our findings and concerns.

People who have visited nutritional therapists emailed us to say that they found the diets recommended to them difficult to maintain over a long time and eventually gave up.

Have you visited a nutritional therapist? What was your experience like – do any of these findings ring true or did you have a more positive experience?

Hello Guy,
with reference to the book you have on Nutrition and Health and the experiments mentioned within it on diet and longevity, I would just like to add of the Blue-Zone peoples of the World, that their longevity was the highest, and where these indigenous peoples mostly lived on a low-calorie but nutrient-dense and plant-based diet to achieve the status of centenarian. Google the word “Nutritarian”.

A Scientist named Buettner and his team identified nine common traits with these indigenous peoples which had the highest longevity, and to which Buettner referred to as the Power9. Of the Power9, three related to diet. Buettner discovered that centenarians……………………………”usually consume a plant-based diet low in processed foods, and teach themselves to stop eating when they are only 80 percent full. They also regularly enjoy red wine in moderation”.

I must say……………………I do agree with that last sentence wholeheartedly!!!!!!!!!

Hi Chrisb. Unfortuneatly the 1907 book on nutrition and health is not in my possession. I only browsed it when I was in the Doctors surgery in the Victorian Town at Ironbridge. If I go back, I will get more details and try to the folks in Hay on Wye to find me a copy. The Blue Zone book is indeed fantastic and is surprising in showing that the greatest longevity is best achieved with a life full of fun, activity and, as you say, some examples pure indulgence. It would be great to get it added to the geography and science national curriculum.

For those of you who may be interested in the role of diet in relation to just one chronic disease (Cancer) a six year study was made on this relationship and published by the World Cancer Research Fund in 2007 entitled……………
“Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective”.

A good example (that the UK could follow) of how the health of the nation was improved was in Finland when they gave fish and boiled potatoes to all school children and introduced financial incentives to get the nation exercisng. Heart disease rates dropped. (please someone correct me if I am wrong with the facts)
Guy and Chris B are right, there are so many world examples of health and longevity in people who eat traditional diets and live traditional lifestyles. However, I do believe we have come a long way scientifically and that a persons uniqueness (genetically) means that a one size fits all diet however good the diet seems to be could possibly be improved upon. Dare I say some people may benefit (due to a genetic polymorphism) to supplement with something that is specific to that particular genetic variation . The science of Nutrigenomics ……!!

Believe what you say is correct, Katie, as to paragraph one but
believe additionally there was active discouragement of (too much)
saturated fats consumption resulting in Finland having a very/low
incidence of CHD and related diseases/illnesses unlike in bad old days
when it was the highest or amongst the very highest in the
developed world.

Too much intake of dairy products and red and processed meats in
the West if you ask me. Of course other lifestyle factors are equally
contributory.

I would add to Katie’s example that not only fish and boiled potatoes were given, but selenium was added to the fields as they found that their soil was very depleted, (as is our own, by the way, as a consequence of the last ice age, in which the glaciers took away the top soil and dumped it in the sea). The application of seaweed could be a way of reversing that loss.

To all the Luddites out there…not intended for you specifically Stuart.. , but it is totally disingenuous to be demanding evidence of the success of holistic treatments, when the drug manufacturing/medical lobby have successfully manipulated the government to prevent therapists from even being able to exhibit client referrals that describe the benefits from their treatments, which are often achieved after exhausting conventional medicine and are thus by nature the more persistent and difficult cases. Regardless of your viewpoint it really is outrageous for the drugs lobby to have managed to prevent free speech and the opportunity to even share actual client experiences,
To use a few whacky extreme examples of poor therapy practise to bludgeon the free discussion and free communication of peoples personal experiences is so short sighted and unfair. There are plenty of poor nurses, doctors, physios etc.. out there dishing out dreadful and dangerous treatments, but it would be wrong to use this as an excuse to send conventional medicine underground. It is a victory for the pharmaceutical industry and luddites in the medical professions, not for the public.

So you argument is that because some pharmaceutical companies are corrupt and manipulate the evidence, ‘alternative’ medicine should have not any particular standard of evidence applied to it. That sounds like special pleading. Logic not you strong point is it?

So in you ideal world would drugs have a standard of evidence to meet, or will it just be a total free for all where anecdotes are king and anything goes and anyone can claim anything?

What government censorship are you refering to?

Love the irony of the “luddite” comment. Self awareness not a strong point either then?

There are more parellels with alternative medicine and yourself, since you protest against medical progress in much the same way they did against mechanisation (because it changed their way of life).

Luckily, evidence based medicine is changing lives for the better while some cling to 200 year old fairy tales.

Steve says we should not demand evidence that holistic treatments work and it is clear that some agree with this. Look at this positively, Stuart. It could save the NHS a lot of money.

Perhaps there is an alternative therapy has a treatment for paranoia.

Incidentally, Luddites with a capital refers to those who destroyed equipment in mills, and luddites could be used to describe those who reject modern developments in orthodox medicine. I’ve just noticed that I’m thinking along the same lines as Stuart in this and other matters.

I know we agreed to discontinue our discussion on that but I believe it was you who brought up that subject again by mentioning Appleton and sugar pills.
The advice from the NHS then isn’t that bad in terms of limiting our salt/sugar/fat intake

I didn’t mean to insult you by giving a biochemistry lesson but that is what I understood as the metabolism of added sugars which has been linked to increased obesity, metabolic syndrome, an impaired immune system and other health problems, including insulin resistance
Mind you even some of the alternative sweeteners are no better, for example in the case of aspartame, but that’s another issue.

You mention aspartame. Let’s assume that I know what it is and how it is metabolised. With the exception of phenylketonurics, who should avoid aspartame for well established reasons, is it better that the rest of us should use aspartame, sugar, HFCS (or something else) to sweeten food and drink?

Let’s make the assumption that the majority of the population are fond of sweet food, even if that is not important in your life or mine, and that no amount of dietary advice is going to clear the supermarket shelves of sweet stuff in the next few years.

I agree with Steve Oldfield that regrettably the public are the real losers because there is now censorship of information and restriction of choice in healthcare. I think the public should have reasonable choice to decide how they want to be treated. The EC regulation of vitamins and herbs that came into force last Arpril threw the baby out with the bathwater. Whilst many inferior products may have disappeared and that is good – in my opinion quality products are no longer available as small companies cannot afford to license them. If they dont exist they will never be used in future trials/evaluations.
As for the need for supplements I dont know that the public realise that they are not given all the information about studies and metaanalyses and that only specific vitamins have ever been tested and no one knows of the quality of the supplements used in the supplement trials that demonstrated that apparently supplements dont work and may be dangerous. Its a question never brought up Results of studies that show supplements that may work (eg fish oils – yes contamnant free!!) are undereported..

Katie,
I agree with you.
I believe that many supplement studies are designed to fail from the outset. One particular study claimed that 400 IUâ€™s of vitamin E per day increased their risk of prostate cancer by 17 percent. The vitamin E used was all rac-Î±-tocopheryl acetateâ€”a synthetic photochemically-derived form of dl-alpha tocopherol, which has known toxic effects.
GreenMedInfo.com has a listing of published research relating to the many ill health effects related to this compound. The Toxicology Data Network also lists numerous health problems related to synthetic vitamin E at various dosages. The study said absolutely nothing about the health effects of natural vitamin E (d-alpha tocopherol). Part of the problem with synthetic alpha tocopherol is that it depletes gamma tocopherol. I could go on.

Another study involving supplemental Vitamin D for women to show any relationship over a 2 year period with breast cancer risk, only used a very low dose of the Vitamin and then they used Vitamin D2 instead of the more effective D3. Too low a dose and the wrong form of Vitamin D or ergocalciferol instead of cholcalciferol.

I could go on and on and on, but these “studies” make headline news where prescription drugs take a back-seat, and rarely if anything is published about their dangers of a conservatively estimated 106,000 deaths annually when they are taken as prescribed.

But who controls the media in the USA? Big Pharma of course because they are their paymasters.
Choice in healthcare is gradually but successfully being eroded in favor of pharmaceuticals.

“the drug manufacturing/medical lobby have successfully manipulated the government to prevent therapists from even being able to exhibit client referrals that describe the benefits from their treatments,”

[citation required]

“it really is outrageous for the drugs lobby to have managed to prevent free speech and the opportunity to even share actual client experiences”

What are you referring to? There always has been censorship of information: the Cancer Act in 1939 was passed to stop people making fraudulent claims that they could treat cancer when they had no evidence. I hope you agree that that ‘censorship’ is for the public benefit?

Of course, one of the biggest and wide-ranging areas of ‘censorship’ is that drug companies are prohibited by law from advertising Prescription Only Medicines to the public in the UK. Can you tell me where this fits in with the Big Pharma conspiracy theories?

“…and restriction of choice in healthcare.”

What choice are you referring to?

“I think the public should have reasonable choice to decide how they want to be treated.”

Absolutely. And I hope we can agree that that choice must be a fully informed choice?

“The EC regulation of vitamins and herbs that came into force last Arpril threw the baby out with the bathwater. Whilst many inferior products may have disappeared and that is good – in my opinion quality products are no longer available as small companies cannot afford to license them.”

To be pedantic, the EU THMPD Directive 2004/24/EC came into force in 2004 and was implemented in 2005 and it only relates to manufactured OTC herbal products, not vitamins. 30 April saw the ending of a seven-year transition period under the Directive. That lengthy transition period was to give manufacturers plenty of time to make sure they had Good Manufacturing Practice in place (to ensure basic procedures to make sure the products are manufactured safely) and to compile the necessary dossier to submit to the MHRA. Unfortunately, manufacturers registering products under the THMPD don’t have to provide any data relating to efficacy or safety, so they are getting Government ‘approval’ without having even to meet anywhere near the same standards as Big Pharma.

Alan. With regard to your comments on fully informed choice.If I was to receive a cancer diagnosis, and chose, after doing some thorough research that I would like to be treated with IV vit C and a Gerson diet would this choice be supported in the NHS?, would it be covered covered by private medical insurance? or would I instead have to get on a plane and look after myself?

Alan H – we do have other things to do as well – An example of censorship is when a small company is not allowed to say on the label that their product (eg plant sterols) may for example lower cholesterol – when the same censorship doesnt apply to large companies who produce cholesterol lowering margarines and the like. another example is when a small company is not allowed to say on a supplement of chromium that the chromium in the product may help to control appetite BUT Tesco are allowed to bring out a chocolate mousse with added chromium and make such a claim

“An example of censorship is when a small company is not allowed to say on the label that their product (eg plant sterols) may for example lower cholesterol – when the same censorship doesnt apply to large companies who produce cholesterol lowering margarines and the like.”

Any sized company is free to make whatever claims they want. All that is asked is that they provide the evidence to substantiate that claim. This ‘censorship’ is evenly applied as far as I can see. Or are you suggesting organisations like the MHRA or the ASA are biased?

I hope you don’t think manufacturers should be free to claim whatever they like with no evidence to substantiate that claim?

Alan – Am I wrong about chromium in that most products cannot claim that chromium may moderate appetite but that Tesco was allowed to say words of that nature on their chocolate mousse?? I hope that I am wrong

The Skinny Mousse desserts contain the mineral chromium, which Tesco said has been the subject of numerous studies and clinical trials and has been approved by the European Food Safety Authority as a food supplement. Chromium has been found to regulate blood sugar levels, which in turn reduces cravings for sweet foods, Tesco explained.

It would appear that the manufacturer has been able to supply evidence that that product did what was being claimed for it. I assume that it was Bio-Synergy (whatever size they are) who were making the claims and not the giant Tesco?

I’m not exactly sure what Katie was claiming about the ‘small’ company: was it that they provided EFSA with evidence but that it was unfairly rejected; or they provided evidence that was rejected because it wasn’t up to the required standard; or that there was contrary evidence and EFSA decided the evidence supplied was insufficient to overcome the contrary evidence; or that they hadn’t provided evidence, but still wanted to make the claim regardless?

Alan I have just read that EFSA passed a ruling in Dec 2011 to prevent companies using clever marketing and making slightly misleading claims on food products, This chocolate mousse was advertised last July 2011before the ruling so I dont know if Bio Synergy still make the claim

I have emailed ASA and hope to get a reply. My point is I suspected some small companies have never made these claims as there has been pressure on them not to make any claims relating to symptoms – I have never seen this claim before on for example chromium supplements. I aim to find out all the facts and will let you know.

Wavechange I completely agree with your statement about sugar in small quantities and children shouldnt be given sugar in desserts and as rewards!!
I also agree with you about the statement about chromium containing amino acids – it has to be a misquote or someone at the time in desparate need of a sugar fix and lost all logical reasoning.

My MEP has admitted to me that the Pharmaceutical Companies have a very powerful and influential status within Europe and the European Parliament, and much more so than any other organization.
He gave this as the reason why there is strong push towards limiting the MPUL’s (Maximum Permitted Upper Levels) of Vitamins and Minerals to non-therapeutic levels. He went on to say that the Pharmaceutical Companies perceive Nutrients as a threat and competition to their business, and are strongly influencing the EFSA to implement these changes under the guise of “safety”, when Vitamins and Minerals already have an impeccable safety record.
Conservative MP Daniel Hannan complained to the Daily Telegraph last September 3, that, “whenever you see an apparently insane Brussels Directive, someone, somewhere stands to gain.” And in his view, the Directives affecting natural remedies resulted because of lobbying by the large pharmaceutical companies.http://www.i-sis.org.uk/vitamins2.php

The problem with evaluating and comparing drugs with nutrients is that nutrients cannot by definition be subjected to safety analyses, because nutrients are essential to life and heal organisms at the cellular level; they also act together synergistically to bring about organ repair, and cause systemic healing when given in higher doses than RDI’s. Toxicity is rare.

This cannot be said for synthetic drugs which are systemically toxic, meaning they are toxic to more than one body system as well as on a cellular level; hence there is a constant need to weigh the benefits of their use with the known risks of their toxicity, specific doses of just so many mg, timing of ingestion, duration of treatment – and the prescription requirement.

So the proposed European legislation in limiting the MPUL’s of Vitamins and Minerals to non-therapeutic levels (based on the grounds of safety) is flawed, and in the interests of the Pharmaceutical Companies and presumably to maintain their status-quo and profit margins.

To achieve the “positive list” of approval for individual nutrients, manufacturers have to submit safety data and a dossier provision for getting nutrients onto this Positive List
The estimated cost to put a dossier together for a single ingredient is somewhere between £250,000 and’ £800,000! That is based on the fact that there was no pre-existing information on the ingredient, though the cost would be significantly less if there was some available data.
Manufacturers are therefore constrained in terms of cost, and essentially have their hands tied behind their backs in being unable to finance these dossiers for approval of nutrients. This I suspect was intentional.

So the fructose in HFCS, which you warned me about, is different from the fructose in fruit? I would like to see this explained in a chemistry textbook or journal, and not some crackpot’s website or a newspaper article.

I think we need to take some information about added and natural sugars with a pinch of salt. Not too much salt, of course.

Isn’t the effect on human health different when you eat naturally occurring sugar as part of a nutrient-dense whole food compared with packet sugar which is not a whole food and is not nutrient dense? My intuition tells me to eat whole fruits in moderation (not drink fruit juice because that’s not a whole food), and ignore packet sugar that my body is not designed to deal with.

I agree to some extent, especially about moderation. Fine to eat an orange but not to drink a large glass of this, whether is commercially produced or home-made from ‘fresh’ oranges.

I’m more concerned about eating a traditional English breakfast, with all the salt, fat, carcinogens produced from nitrites and nitrates in bacon and sausages, and carcinogens produced in frying. I would rather risk eating sugar-infested breakfast cereal. Skip that and have proper muesli (without milk powder or sugar) and accept that a lot of the carbohydrate is metabolised to produce glucose much faster than some of the wholefood cranks are prepared to admit. Avoid processed foods, I agree, but there is no need to become obsessed and pay silly money for them.

Basically, we are eating too much food and the fact that much of it requires little or no preparation does not help. Some advocate small frequent meals but this can lead to continuous grazing, which works well for cows but not for humans.

Hello Wavechange,
I didn’t say, or mean to imply, that the fructose contained within High Fructose Corn Syrup is any different from that found in fruits, but what I did try to explain is the word “high” and how fructose proliferates the processed food supply.
A western diet now includes far more fructose than was originally intended by our maker and it is this overuse that is claimed to be leading to health problems.
HFCS 55 (mostly used in soft drinks), approximately 55% fructose and 42% glucose; and HFCS 42 (used in beverages, processed foods, cereals and baked goods), approximately 42% fructose and 53% glucose.[5][6] HFCS-90, approximately 90% fructose and 10% glucose, is used in small quantities for specialty applications, but primarily is used to blend with HFCS 42 to make HFCS 55.

The fructose found in fruit does not get metabolized as fat inside your body. The fructose found in fruit is a simple sugar, and it gets metabolized as a simple sugar. Eating fresh fruit does not elevate your triglyceride level.
When it comes to fructose, eating fresh fruit is very different than drinking a soda that has been sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup. A medium-sized apple contains about 10 grams of fructose. A 12-ounce soda that has been sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup contains close to 25 grams. There is some research evidence showing that excessive intake of fructose can raise triglyceride levels in humans, and there is definitely concern among health professionals about greatly increased intake of high-fructose corn syrup in sodas and other processed foods in the U.S. diet. But a whole, natural food like a medium-sized apple does not contain an excessive amount of fructose, and moderate amounts of whole, natural foods in a balanced diet are highly unlikely to bring your fructose intake to an excessive level.

If anyone drinks a can of soda full of sugar, glucose will enter the bloodstream at a rate of something like 30 calories per minute. A complex carbohydrate is digested more slowly, so glucose enters the bloodstream at a rate of only 2 calories per minute

This is my take on the matter and no I am not attempting to insult your credentials Wavechange.

The Yale Guide to Nutrition states……………….
If complex carbohydrates are broken down to mono-saccharides in the intestines before they are absorbed into the bloodstream, why are they better than refined sugar or other di- or mono-saccharides? To a great extent it has to do with the processes of digestion and absorption. Simple sugars require little digestion, and when a child eats a sweet food, such as a candy bar or a can of soda, the glucose level of the blood rises rapidly. In response, the pancreas secretes a large amount of insulin to keep blood glucose levels from rising too high. This large insulin response in turn tends to make the blood sugar fall to levels that are too low 3 to 5 hours after the candy bar or can of soda has been consumed. This tendency of blood glucose levels to fall may then lead to an adrenaline surge, which in turn can cause nervousness and irritability… The same roller-coaster ride of glucose and hormone levels is NOT experienced after eating complex carbohydrates or after eating a balanced meal because the digestion and absorption processes are much slower.

My concern about fructose is not in its chemical composition, but in the high quantities it is now being consumed from a processed diet, and how this can have injurious health consequences.

I would be interested to know how HFCS 90 is made, since conversion of glucose to fructose catalysed by glucose isomerase will not achieve this. I might look that up.

I suggest that we should focus on following government guidelines on nutrition and that these should be tweaked where necessary and modified when there is good reason for changes.

The reasons for avoiding processed foods are well established, but let’s avoid the cranks’ claims and also the healthfood shops that charge silly prices by exploiting ignorance and fears. With the exception of those who have a known health problem the only weight loss diet that should be promoted is advice to eat less and to eat a balanced diet.

Mindwave, I remember being in a crowded shop that sold bacon in Dublin in about 1960. A man suddenly said in a loud voice. “you will get cancer from eating bacon”. He was very much a crank back then. I am a bit of a wholefood crank but very economical as my breakfast is usually homegrown apples oatmeal and some yogurt. Eat very little out of a packet. As a child and young person, we basically thought bacon and egg was what supper was. My grandparents diet was the same and the bacon and ham homecured. Very high salt. No cancers but heart trouble and high blood pressure..

I repair radios and other home electronics until integrated circuits arrived and spare time departed. Had my house been bigger I might have become a collector. I have never been interested in ham radio, though I can understand why it is a popular hobby. Now if that’s not off-topic, nothing is.

Wavechange,
I have never personally relied on Govt’ guidelines in the case of diet/nutrition although I think they are on the right track, albeit slowly.

Indeed the reasons for avoiding processed food are well established, but as Selina has highlighted, the cranks of yesterday are usually the realists of today, and I wager that will be the case with diet/nutrition and disease-causation.
I agree with you that Health-food shops can charge what seem to be exorbitant prices, but is there anything that isn’t currently perceived as having “silly and extortionate prices”? Do Health-food shops exploit “ignorance and fears”? that is debatable, but they have historically been viewed by many as beacons of health-truth. I daresay that some are solely run with the profit motive in mind as most businesses would, but I think historically that is not the case in my view.

Eat less and consume a balanced diet? Absolutely, just so long as this is low-calorie and nutrient-dense, but by a balanced diet I assume you mean an apple in either hand should balance the scales eh?.!!!!

Let’s not worry about whether it is the scientists or the NTs who shape advice on nutrition for the future. Take the credit if you want, but my view is that science and orthodox medicine has made a bigger contribution.

Had a small wholefood and delicatessn shop for a while in early 80s. Don’t think I made even 50p and hour. Lloydspharmacy bought the chain Holland and Barrett in 1992. It now seems to be owned by the Carlyle Group.

OK, wavechange I agree to stop trying to wind you up, but then whose trying? I think I did it rather well (humor).!!!

I don’t seek any credit for anything, and I don’t think it really matters whether scientists or NT’s or anyone involved with Nutritional Science shapes the advice on Nutrition in the future, just so long as it accurate and reliable advice, without any preconceived/biased/or prejudiced notions.

I do agree with you that Modern Medicine has made great strides in improving the lot of humanity as a whole, as for example in anesthesia, surgical skills/techniques, trauma, diagnostics and so on, but it is my fervent wish that instead of sitting on opposite sides of the health-divide, we could marry the disciplines together and discard that which is true quackery from the equation, and embrace that which is built on what actually works from that which does not.
The problem arises from dogma on both sides, and the financial incentives that go against the grain in achieving freedom from disease and a life worth living.

I agree with all of that, and your last sentence did give me a good laugh. If you are prepared to accept a balanced view of a subject you would be no good as a politician, even if you can present an argument.

Although I am in favour of the scientific approach and have the greatest respect for those who specialise in promoting the public understanding of science, those scientists who indulge in public scare tactics do worry me. I prefer the ones who beaver away in their labs and wait until they have something worth publishing rather than succumbing to the pressure to publish – which seems to be debasing science.

I am not happy about conventional medicine, and I have criticised pill pushing GPs and the lack of one-to-one care that individuals need and is beyond what the NHS can offer. There is more – a lot more – but I do not want to discredit a service that is achieving so much in difficult circumstances. Ever since this Conversation started, I have wondered what would happen if the Which? researchers had visited GPs instead of NTs. I expect this would have shown some opportunities for improvement.

Also, we’d like to take this opportunity to respond to some comments made by Maria Henness of the Nightingale Collaboration earlier in this thread (http://conversation.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/nutritional-therapists-advice-worth-the-cost/comment-page-7/#comment-55244). First of all, we wish to point out that we are an entirely donation-funded organisation, and the vast majority of that funding comes from individual members of the public, a proportion of which are practitioners. Although we do receive funds from some product manufacturers, describing us as, “Funded by the food supplement industry” as though we are nothing but a paid mouthpiece is simply untrue. Trade associations like the Health Food Manufacturers Association (HFMA) are 100% funded by manufacturers and distributors, and our positions are at odds with trade associations like the HFMA in important areas.

The assets Maria mentions simply reflect the strength of support, principally by members of the public and practitioners. When we put out a call for funding of a legal challenge in the European Court of Justice against the EU’s Traditional Herbal Medicinal Products Directive (THMPD), we achieved our initial funding target and more in a few short months – a great testament to the depth of feeling on the issue. Once again, the vast majority of this money came from small, individual donations. Very little came from companies. We fail to see why a donation-funded campaign organisation should not have donations in the bank, or what is wrong with having a team of paid staff – but Maria appears to believe that we are frauds unless we are penniless volunteers. She should take a look at the history of effective NGOs (non-governmental organisations).

Any unjaundiced reading of our article about Prof Williamson – the ‘Prof at Reading’ – would make it clear that we did not mount a, “Spineless and unsupportable attack” on anyone. She misrepresented the aims and scope of the THMPD in a letter to the UK Health Secretary, the consequences of which could have been to force perfectly safe and legal products from the UK market. Our article clearly stated that Prof Williamson had been supportive of herbal medicine in the past. In fact, her prior position made us wonder why she was suddenly proposing a move that would promote highly purified, single-herb extracts, stabilised in a base consisting of artificial polymers and other additives, over the more natural, whole-herb products that she has championed in the past.

We are at a loss as to why Maria thinks we accuse anyone of being Big Pharma shills, “Over and over again on [our] website”. When we find good evidence of such connections, we will present it, but it is laughable to present the material on our website in such a childish and simplistic manner. Maria’s baseless accusation does remind us of the infinite debating loop that Ben Goldacre found himself in recently, however [http://www.anh-europe.org/news/goldacre-vs-verkerk-an-unresolvable-twitter-duel].

Finally, we are not against proportionate regulations that work to protect the consumer. However, close examination of the relevant EU legislation, such as the THMPD, the Food Supplements Directive and the Nutrition and Health Claims Regulation, show clearly that consumers will be afforded little additional worthwhile protection. Instead, they will be denied the choice of effective, safe, high-quality products and even of the information they need to make healthy food choices. Worse, still, many will be force to buy completely unregulated products from the Internet. These are issues we believe are worth campaigning against, and which Ms Henness – if she were nothing more than a genuine consumer as she claims – would probably be on our side about.

Hello Stuart (see, I’m becoming rather pally now).
I don’t think anyone is seriously arguing that alternative medicine does not need to have any particular standard of evidence, because of course it should, otherwise we could all fall prey to those altruistic charlatans that actually do sell the real McCoy in real “snake oil”.

OK I have reciprocated on your last two postings. Now let me have your thoughts on aspartame versus sugar for those who have sweet food. You mentioned aspartame and having an interest in biotechnology, it was a development that I followed closely at the time Canderel/Nutrasweet were introduced.

Critics have alleged that the quality of the initial research supporting its safety was inadequate and flawed, and that conflicts of interest marred its approval. It is reported that it accounts for 75 percent of the adverse reactions to food additives reported to the FDA.

One Dr. Russell L. Blaylock, a professor of neurosurgery at the Medical University of Mississippi, recently published a book thoroughly detailing the damage that is caused by the ingestion of excessive aspartic acid from aspartame. Blaylock makes use of almost 500 scientific references to show how excess free excitatory amino acids such as aspartic acid and glutamic acid (about 99 percent of monosodium glutamate (MSG) is glutamic acid) in our food supply are causing serious chronic neurological disorders and a myriad of other acute symptoms.

Others are equally as condemning as they say that Aspartame is metabolized inside the body into wood alcohol, methanol, and formaldehyde, which is used to embalm tissue, and not eliminated from the body through the normal waste filtering (liver and kidneys) it can increase the risk of cancer.

However, before you jump down my throat, the jury for me is still out on this, but I view most things artificial within the food chain as not healthy generally, so I am not going to condemn it one way or another.
Apparently stevia is purported to be a better/safer alternative as being used in Japan for decades and was approved for use within the EU last year. It is supposed to be an all-natural herbal product with centuries of safe usage by native Indians in Paraguay. It’s also been thoroughly tested in dozens of tests around the world and found to be completely non-toxic.

I have used stevia for about three years now with no ill-effects that I am aware of.

Stuart,
“What standard of evidence should there be for ‘alternative medicine’?”

The standards of therapeutic excellence and efficacy without the risk of toxicity. Some clinical trials perhaps, but that would depend on the evidence that is acceptable as a consensus by impartial health-professionals generally, without any bias or prejudice or preconceived ideas, which are most likely formulated by an individuals initial training/dogmas and mindset.
Not easy.
But true scientists are supposed to have an open mind, are they not?

Wavechange,
“Fasting for 30 plus days?? The thought of that or a repeat prescription could cure a lot of conditions”.

I just knew you had a sense of humor in there somewhere.

Yes fasting does seem to be rather oddball, and probably practiced by “oddballs” as well, and it produces images of the horror of war and death by famine/starvation, but it has been used throughout history/Nature as a curative agent: even Hippocrates and Paracelsus used it as a remedy amongst their patients.
Fasting and starvation are synonymous and interchangeable terms amongst Allopaths, but nothing could be further from the truth. The medical establishment even denied that anyone could go without food/nourishment for longer than 5 days up until the 1930′s to 50′s.

Next time anyone becomes ill with a cold or flu or whatever, notice how the appetite tends to disappear, and only reappears when well. Digestive energy during this time is then utilized with the other recuperative powers of the body in fighting off the disease. All we have to do is listen to our bodies, whether that is the need for sleep/rest/exercise or thirst, we still possess innate bodily needs that many of us are totally unaware of.

I must confess to having consumed a rather large slice of Waitrose Chocolate and Raspberry Torte this evening, which a friend brought round. It seemed extremely sweet, possibly because I’m not accustomed to eating much sweet food. If you don’t hear from me again, Nancy Appleton was right after all.

I have a feeling that I may survive, like I did at Christmas when I was encouraged to eat lots of expensive chocolate. My understanding is that the body can cope with all sorts of indignities but it is the sustained abuse that causes the problem.

Anyway, I will start a fast now, and end it at breakfast or whenever I feel hungry. I agree we should listen to our bodies. For example, we should eat when we feel hungry and not before, but that does not always fit in with the rest of our lives.

I think we have enough evidence from a historical and observational perspective to do what they did in Finland – improve the UK diet – and expect a reduction in chronic disease both prevention and amelioration of existing conditions.

THe real question of this conversation has been about the professionalism of NTs and I think it has been unfair tarnishing them all with the same brush. Like Wavechange, I have a collection of horror stories about poor medical treatment from doctors and hospitals and rudeness to boot.

IOne of the problems has been NT being treated as an alternative therapy when actually nutrition is not alternative at all is it ? It is just, in my opinion, that conventional medicine has not had enough interest in nutrition and that is why the NT profession has prospered. Joining other alternative therapists by being members of the CNHC has not done NTs any favours. By the way I am not judging other therapies just saying they are different.

Yes, Katie, I could produce plenty of personal anecdotes to criticise the treatment that me and my parents have had over the years. I could produce an even longer list of positive comments and I am amazed how well the service works in the circumstances.

The most relevant issue is that no-one, GP, NT, or anyone else, should be encouraging people to swallow drugs/supplements unless there is a need.

I have mentioned my criticism of the NHS because I want to demonstrate that I am open minded.

Ah yes…….good old chocolate.
If you think I’m going to slate it……you’d be wrong, because it is high in potassium and magnesium, provides us with several vitamins – including B1, B2, D, and E. It also stimulates the secretion of endorphins, producing that pleasurable “high” sensation similar to the “runner’s high” a jogger feels after running several miles.
Chocolate also contains the neurotransmitter, serotonin, that acts as an anti-depressant.

So choc-away it isn’t that bad for you………….whoops………..except for the added sugars of course !!!!!

Yes, the pleasurable effects of chocolate have probably been better studied and reported than anything else we eat, and there is nothing very controversial about this. The sale of Cadburys, that great British institution, to Kraft is perhaps not so bad if you consider the amount of sugar in their products, irrespective of whether you are one of the arrogant chocolate experts that is rude about sweet chocolate or just don’t want to eat loads of sugar. At least chocolate, of whatever variety is low in salt.

Meanwhile, back to the plot. What are NTs going to do to confer respectability on their profession? Which? has reported problems with optometrists, dentists and would no doubt find problems with GPs if they dared to investigate. Unfortunately the NTs seem to have attracted even more criticism than garages involved in servicing cars, and both could affect people’s lives. If I was an NT I would not be very happy with my professional body and I would be pushing them to ban members who promote some of the questionable therapies.

Adam,
thank you for your response to the unjustified criticisms of the ANH article made by Maria Henness of the Nightingale Collaboration.
One wonders why this organization is named after Florence Nightingale (which I am led to believe it is) as she was an innovator of her day, eventually receiving recognition for her work and esp’ so in Crimea. It was here that she met much opposition from Military officers and doctors who objected to her views on reforming military hospitals.

The Doctors in particular interpreted her comments as an attack on their professionalism, where, in the army hospitals, war wounds only accounted for one death in six. Diseases such as typhus, cholera and dysentery were the main reasons why the death-rate was so high amongst wounded soldiers, but by improving the quality of the sanitation she was able to dramatically reduce the death-rate of her patients.
By definition then the Collaboration should be named after someone else, because Florence Nightingale was for innovation of her day (sanitation and hygiene) in healthcare, whereas the NC seems to be only concerned with “protecting” the public from innocuous health claims.

If they really wanted to make any headway in healthcare at all in protecting the public at large, then they should think about re-channeling their efforts (for example) into the appalling death-rate from properly prescribed pharmaceuticals instead.

I don’t see Adam’s comment so either it is on an early page or he has ignored the T&Cs and his message has been removed,

I don’t know much about the Nightingale Collaboration but I see the name of Alan Henness on their website, and Alan has made some useful input in these discussions.

Referring to the ‘appalling death rate of properly prescribed pharmaceuticals’ might be a bit over the top. Hopefully those involved will learn from mistakes and it must be remembered that some of these deaths will have resulted from efforts to save the lives of people who are very sick.

Let’s pull together and not have a competition between conventional and alternative medicine. I know which would lose, and so do you.

Just think what Florence Nightingale could have achieved with the help of modern hospitals, a GP to prescribe antibiotics and no multi-drug resistant bacteria to contend with.

If you know Florence Nightingale just for her considerable innovations in nursing, then there is much you have missed about her, not least that she was a gifted mathematician – she was the first woman member of the Royal Statistical Society, for example. She based what she did – particularly in the years after her time in the Crimea and her reforms of healthcare in India – on careful observation and the gathering of evidence that she analysed meticulously. The fact that she made progress in many areas of healthcare even if this was against prevailing views and understanding is testament to her abilities to gather and present persuasive and robust evidence. Her innovation was to use evidence to challenge and to get rid of practices that didn’t work and did not stand up to scrutiny.

That is what science is all about: the changing of views – sometimes even strongly held ones – by providing robust evidence. That is how knowledge progresses and the things that don’t work are discarded.

This is one reason why nonsense like homeopathy still clings to its 200-year-old beliefs and has progressed not one iota since then: homeopathists are unwilling or unable to accept challenge and change.

I’m sorry you think that a belief in homeopathy or suchlike to be ‘innocuous’. It is certainly ineffective, but it is a belief system that, while for most means buying useless sugar pills and contributing the odd fiver to the profits of Boots, for some it costs a few hundred pounds paying a homeopath for a ‘consultation’ (holistic, of course). But the damage does not stop there. The slippery slope of quackery leads to homeopaths going to Africa, funded by UK homeopathic charities, to cure HIV/AIDS with their sugar pills; to advise taking sugar pills instead of malarial prophylactics that have been proven to work; to counsel people to forego cancer treatment but to take their little blobs of sugar instead as if they had miraculous healing properties. And of course this frequently entrenched anti-science attitudes (which usually means anti-progress and anti- questioning of their own beliefs) can lead to tragedy, yes, even from something as ‘innocuous’ as homeopathy. Homeopathy isn’t some healthcare innovation to be protected; it’s a pre- and anti-science mindset that has no place in the 21st century.

Yes, I’m also concerned about Big Pharma and support all those who seek to better control their worst excesses and deception, but there is little I can personally do about that. What we can do – as can other concerned members of the public – is to challenge claims made to the public by practitioners of alternative therapies and using existing regulatory bodies to curb their misleading claims. All we ask is that they be held to the same standards that the rest of us have to abide by: if you make a claim, you must be able to back it up with robust evidence.

I am concerned about people being misled by false or misleading claims and duped into paying money for ‘remedies’ that, at best, do not work, that prevent or delay proper treatments or, at worst, even kill – and I would hope that you would be too.

ExR&D
yes there is quite a difference between Dietetics and Nutritional Therapy.

It is significant for me that Dietetics can recommend what I consider to be “food-less foods” including Highly processed, sugary foods such as Angel Delight, Instant whip, Aeros, Rolos, and Dairy Milk for CANCER patients at the Royal Marsden Hospital, and where this seems to go unquestioned and acceptable nutritional advice; I think this probably goes back to the simple equation of “calories in and calories out” mentality of nutrition.

The 1931 Nobel laureate in medicine, German Otto Warburg, Ph.D., first discovered that cancer cells have a fundamentally different energy metabolism compared to healthy cells. The crux of his Nobel thesis was that malignant tumors frequently exhibit an increase in anaerobic glycolysis – - a process whereby glucose is used as a fuel by cancer cells with lactic acid as an anaerobic byproduct – - – - compared to normal tissues.

The large amount of lactic acid produced by this fermentation of glucose from cancer cells is then transported to the liver. This conversion of glucose to lactate generates a lower, more acidic pH in cancerous tissues as well as overall physical fatigue from lactic acid buildup. Thus, larger tumors tend to exhibit a more acidic pH.

This inefficient pathway for energy metabolism yields only 2 moles of adenosine triphosphate (ATP) energy per mole of glucose, compared to 38 moles of ATP in the complete aerobic oxidation of glucose. By extracting only about 5 percent (2 vs. 38 moles of ATP) of the available energy in the food supply and the body’s calorie stores, the cancer is “wasting” energy, and the patient becomes tired and undernourished. This vicious cycle increases body wasting and is one reason why 40 percent of cancer patients die from malnutrition, or cachexia. Hence, cancer therapies should encompass regulating blood-glucose levels via diet, and other means.
The quest is not to eliminate sugars or carbohydrates from the diet, but rather to control blood glucose within a narrow range to help starve the cancer and bolster immune function.

Since cancer cells derive most of their energy from anaerobic glycolysis, Joseph Gold, M.D., director of the Syracuse (N.Y.) Cancer Research Institute and former U.S. Air Force research physician, surmised that a chemical called hydrazine sulfate, used in rocket fuel, could inhibit the excessive gluconeogenesis (making sugar from amino acids) that occurs in cachectic cancer patients. Gold’s work demonstrated hydrazine sulfate’s ability to slow and reverse cachexia in advanced cancer patients. A placebo-controlled trial followed 101 cancer patients taking either 6 mg hydrazine sulfate three times/day or placebo. After one month, 83 percent of hydrazine sulfate patients increased their weight, compared to 53 percent on placebo.15 A similar study by the same principal researchers, partly funded by the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., followed 65 patients. Those who took hydrazine sulfate and were in good physical condition before the study began lived an average of 17 weeks longer.

The medical establishment may be missing the connection between sugar and its role in tumorigenesis. Consider the million-dollar positive emission tomography device, or PET scan, regarded as one of the ultimate cancer-detection tools. PET scans use radioactively labeled glucose to detect sugar-hungry tumor cells. PET scans are used to plot the progress of cancer patients and to assess whether present protocols are effective.

In my view (and with all due respect to Dieticians) they are unwittingly helping to exacerbate the problem of cancer rather than the opposite.

Adams reply from the ANH is on page 7,
I still maintain the death-rates from properly prescribed pharmaceuticals and taken as prescribed are as portrayed and recorded as such in the United States.
And yes I think we should all pull together, but I don’t believe it is about winning or losing between conventional and alternative medicine as the only real losers in any of this are the public at large.

As I said NTs should not be associated with alternative therapies by being regulated by the CNHC – that was a bad move

i hope Wavechange you are feeling level headed and refreshed after your overnight fast, As you wish to engage in this debate with an open mind may I ask you (though you say you are against supplements) would you consider 2 large glasses of a freshly squeezed juice made of greens, celery beet carrot or the like a supplement or a food – after alll it is a concentrate of nutrients and what about for example a seaweed extract in a capsule is that a food or a supplement? – do you think there is a clear definition of a nutritional supplement?

Sorry Katie, but I have been assuming that anything not associated with NHS healthcare can be classed as alternative therapy. This reminds me that ‘alternative therapy/therapist’ does not feature on Wikipedia. Like it or not, Wikipedia is many people’s first choice when trying to obtain a relatively unbiased introduction to a subject. I remain open minded about NT (honestly!), though I have my concerns, but certainly would not want put NT in the same class as ear candling.

You pose a very interesting question about what I consider as a supplement. For me, the juice is a food (and two large glasses seems rather a lot) and the capsule is a supplement. I think of supplements as providing a specified amount of vitamins, minerals or other essential nutrients, and something best avoided unless there is a reason for taking them. Having some knowledge of the biochemical roles of various vitamins and at least some of the essential chemical elements (NTs would refer to them as minerals) is a driver for me to eat a varied diet, probably more so than NHS guidelines. I am also aware that the body stores most vitamins and I am not in the slightest worried about what I eat in individual meals or even on single days, and tend to review what I have been eating (and not eating) on a weekly basis. After all, we have evolved to cope with irregular eating and a varied diet.

Vote in our Poll

Comment of the Week

DerekP

“I am really sorry to hear that one of our fellow members has become the victim of this scam.
I suspect that this is a case of there, but for the grace of god, would be a number of the rest of us too.
In the cold light of day, most...”